| Question | Answer | Marks |
| 1(a) | It does agree that people will perform better if their working hours fit their natural rhythms [{formtext: name=1aa; default=1; cols=2}], but it links those rhythms to age-group rather than chronotype/choice [{formtext: name=1ab; default=1; cols=2}]. No mark for judgment. | {=`1aa` + `1ab`}/2 |
| 1(b) | 2 marks each for up to two developed valid answers 1 mark each for up to two undeveloped or marginal answers/answers expressed as criticisms of the data instead of alternative explanations 2-mark answers: [{formtext: name=1b1}] The students (in years 1 and 2) may happen to have been of greater ability (than those in year 0). [{formtext: name=1b2}] The students (in years 1 and 2) may happen to have been healthier people (than those in year 0). [{formtext: name=1b3}] The students (in years 1 and 2) may have been more naturally motivated (than those in year 0). [{formtext: name=1b4}] The teaching (in years 1 and 2) may have been better (than that in year 0). [{formtext: name=1b5}] The national average for absence may have been higher (in years 1 and 2) (than in year 0). [{formtext: name=1b6}] The national standards for attainment may have been set a little lower (in years 1 and 2) (than in year 0). [{formtext: name=1b7}] The students / teachers (in years 1 and 2) may have responded positively to knowing they were in an experiment (the ‘Hawthorne effect’). [{formtext: name=1b8}] The sanctions for absence/rewards for attendance may have increased (in years 1 and 20 (by comparison with year 0). 1-mark answers: [{formtext: name=1b9}] The improvement in academic results may have been due to the reduced number of absences. [{formtext: name=1b10}] The students in the different years of the experiment were not the same people. | {=`1b1` + `1b2` + `1b3` + `1b4` + `1b5` + `1b6` + `1b7` + `1b8` + `1b9` + `1b10`}/4 |
| 1(c) | 2 marks for a correct answer with accurate explanation 1 mark for a correct answer with vague, incomplete or generic explanation 0 marks for correct answer without explanation 0 marks for incorrect answer with or without explanation 2-mark answer (3 ticks) [{formtoggle: default=no; name=1c1}✓{endformtoggle}] Source D is not an argument. [{formtoggle: default=no; name=1c2}✓{endformtoggle}] It consists of a factual report with an explanation of why a school has decided on a particular policy. [{formtoggle: default=no; name=1c3}✓{endformtoggle}]It does not include a (persuasive) conclusion / The word “therefore” in the third sentence indicates an explanation, not a conclusion. 1-mark answers (2 ticks) [{formtoggle: default=no; name=1c4}✓{endformtoggle}] Source D is not an argument, because it does not include a persuasive conclusion. [{formtoggle: default=no; name=1c5}✓{endformtoggle}] Source D is not an argument. It consists of a factual report with an explanation of why a school has decided on a particular policy 0-mark answer (1 tick or 0 ticks) [{formmenu: ; ✓; default=Χ}] Source D is not an argument, because it does not include two contrasting opinions. It consists of a factual report with an explanation of why a school has decided on a particular policy. | {formtext}/2 |
| 1(d) | 1 mark each for up to three of the following: [{formtext: name=1d1; cols=2}] The experiment involved only 16–18 year-olds / is irrelevant to younger ages. [{formtext: name=1d2; cols=2}] The experiment involved only one school; there may be features of that school that make it unrepresentative of all schools. [{formtext: name=1d3; cols=2}] There is no evidence (allow ‘no statistics’) to support the school’s evaluation/decision. [{formtext: name=1d4; cols=2}] There is no indication of the criteria which persuaded the school to judge that the experiment had succeeded. [{formtext: name=1d5; cols=2}] The experiment involved much later working hours and it is not clear whether the results would support a less radical proposal. [{formtext: name=1d6; cols=2}] There was no control group to enable a proper comparison to be made. [{formtext: name=1d7; cols=2}] It is unclear what the experimental period was – if only 1 week for example then the results would not be very reliable. [{formtext: name=1d8; cols=2}] Source D does not assess the impact on the staff / parents / students’ lives outside school / state resources etc. | {=`1d1` + `1d2` + `1d3` + `1d4` + `1d5` + `1d6` + `1d7` + `1d8`}/3 |
| 1(e) | [{formtext: name=1e1; cols=2}] Source E is of moderate credibility (neither incredible nor very credible) [{formtext: name=1e2; cols=2}] As a teacher, the author has some expertise and ability to see [{formtext: name=1e3; cols=2}] but he/she does not have current first-hand expertise of being a teenager [{formtext: name=1e4; cols=2}] The author has an explicit vested interest (accept bias) to oppose a change in school hours, which reduces his/her reliability [{formtext: name=1e5; cols=2}] The suggestion that students’ preference for later working hours is due to their use of mobile phones is inconsistent with Source B [{formtext: name=1e6; cols=2}] but it is plausible that this is a partially true explanation [{formtext: name=1e7; cols=2}] The comment about harmful consequences on teachers’ family life will be plausible if some schools keep to traditional times [{formtext: name=1e8; cols=2}] The comment about expectations of employers is not entirely plausible, because tolerance of early start times improves with age | {=`1e1` + `1e2` + `1e3` + `1e4` + `1e5` + `1e6` + `1e7` + `1e8`}/3 |